Galloping Over The Minimum Wage Myth

[Daktoria]

“You didn’t build that!” wasn't about people applying themselves to become successful.

It was a sarcastic remark that was meant to point out how many rich people become rich since they screw around with the rules of the game. Many rich people don't apply themselves to become successful. They simply abuse others and hide behind plausible deniability while being yes-men and sucking up to authorities.

On the other hand, some people become successful because yes, they do apply themselves to become successful, but they're lucky because they weren't preyed on [by] abusive people unlike those who apply themselves and do get preyed on by abusers.

The point of saying, “You didn’t build that!” was to point out how some people have tunnel vision.

 

[Daktoria]

I mean that's the real point about minimum wage.

When you live in a society where people can become successful by being anti-intellectually stuck in their ways and obsessed with ruggedly individualistic work ethic of conforming to norms for the sake of practical simple-minded, closed-minded, folk community common sense...

...you end up discriminating against honest, innocent, goodwilling people who apply themselves to become successful. People become successful because they're bullies, and they hide behind the free market after the fact.

Minimum wage ensures that those who are abused despite honestly applying themselves can still get by. It's not redistributive justice. It's retributive justice. It's something that exists because society isn't willing to analyze those who commit wrongdoings. Instead, it implicitly blames the victim by saying those in society who get abused have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and overcome adversity. It doesn't have a willingness to constantly keep track of right and wrong. It simply blames victims in saying they're selfish for expecting society to slow down just to accommodate and account for their abuse.

The issue is a lot more complex than simple economic regulation. If equality was the only issue at hand, sure, minimum wage would be wrong, but it's not.

 

[Crystalclear]

Having had many employees over time, I can attest a high percentage of minimum wage earners, are being overpaid.

When our pal wingy was gainfully employed, he was paid in beaver pelts.



His understanding of economics is at the same level of his understanding of politics....probably believes that the community organizer is doing a great job with the economy.





What he misses in your post is how minimum wage laws are at odds with value provided.









1. While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.



a.Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.





2.Employers, of course, are free to make adjustments in their use of labor. Often said adjustments are at the expense of the workers who are most disadvantaged in terms of their marketable skills. They will lose their jobs, or not be hired in the first place.



a.The workers who suffer most are the most marginal, usually youths, and racial minorities, disproportionally represented among low-skilled workers.



b.Not only are the above made less employable by minimum wage laws, but they lose the opportunity to upgrade their skills via on-the-job training.

From “Race & Economics,” by Walter E. Williams, chapter three

When employees make you all of your money isn't their value 100%?

Of course not, it's not their business. They need the business more than the business needs them. There are very often many others who can also perform the job.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“You didn’t build that!” wasn't about people applying themselves to become successful.

It was a sarcastic remark that was meant to point out how many rich people become rich since they screw around with the rules of the game. Many rich people don't apply themselves to become successful. They simply abuse others and hide behind plausible deniability while being yes-men and sucking up to authorities.

On the other hand, some people become successful because yes, they do apply themselves to become successful, but they're lucky because they weren't preyed on [by] abusive people unlike those who apply themselves and do get preyed on by abusers.

The point of saying, “You didn’t build that!” was to point out how some people have tunnel vision.

It was a peek at his communist credentials.

Dope.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

“You didn’t build that!” wasn't about people applying themselves to become successful.

It was a sarcastic remark

It was not sarcastic, it was 100% Marxist claiming that what one guy built requires society's roads, schools, consumers, previous inventions, etc etc. so it really was built by everyone and so communistically belongs to everyone.

Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

“ Many rich people don't apply themselves to become successful. They simply abuse others and hide behind plausible deniability while being yes-men and sucking up to authorities.

That's total BS of course. So then why not tell us who these people are, what % of the rich they are, and how they get rich abusing other people? Are you now afriaid to defend what you said?

 

[Daktoria]

Wrong. Burden of proof is on the affirmative. Show us how everyone who's rich has applied oneself honestly to become successful.

 

[Daktoria]

“You didn’t build that!” wasn't about people applying themselves to become successful.

It was a sarcastic remark

It was not sarcastic, it was 100% Marxist claiming that what one guy built requires society's roads, schools, consumers, previous inventions, etc etc. so it really was built by everyone and so communistically belongs to everyone.

Do you understand?

If you actually studied Marxism, then you would know what Marx thinks about law. He believed that law was something that was manipulated by the ruling class to maintain control over the relations of production.

This is what I was talking about before with regards to abuse, hiding behind plausible deniability, and sucking up to authorities. The idea is that many successful people manipulate the legal system to get away with being abusive.

Even with regards to infrastructure, you should know that Marx believed the superstructure of society emerged from its base. Yes, people in society enable businessmen to become successful by building infrastructure that they need. The values they have motivate them to build that infrastructure, and those values are manipulated by abusive personalities who engage in dialectically materialist might makes right power politics.

 

[Daktoria]

“You didn’t build that!” wasn't about people applying themselves to become successful.

It was a sarcastic remark that was meant to point out how many rich people become rich since they screw around with the rules of the game. Many rich people don't apply themselves to become successful. They simply abuse others and hide behind plausible deniability while being yes-men and sucking up to authorities.

On the other hand, some people become successful because yes, they do apply themselves to become successful, but they're lucky because they weren't preyed on [by] abusive people unlike those who apply themselves and do get preyed on by abusers.

The point of saying, “You didn’t build that!” was to point out how some people have tunnel vision.

It was a peek at his communist credentials.

Dope.

Why does that matter when you live in a society where abusive people rise to positions of prosperity?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The idea is that many successful people manipulate the legal system to get away with being abusive.

success in capitalism comes from inventing and marketing say the iphone that improves peoples standard of living. Where exactly does it come from being abusive or manipulatinig the legal system!?? 3rd time I've asked the Marxist fool.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why does that matter when you live in a society where abusive people rise to positions of prosperity?

Jobs and Gates were abusive because they invented computers that we all could afford and wanted to buy?? Why does a liberal always get everything backwards?

 

[Crystalclear]

Why does that matter when you live in a society where abusive people rise to positions of prosperity?

Jobs and Gates were abusive because they invented computers that we all could afford and wanted to buy?? Why does a liberal always get everything backwards?

He probably means bankers, for example. But it are especially the leftists who support subsidies to banks.

 

[initforme]

"Having had many employees over time, I can attest a high percentage of minimum wage earners, are being overpaid"

Minimum wage = minimum work. Can't have it both ways. If you offer minimum wage you shouldn't expect hard working people. If you find one with half a brain, they will be sure to leave you asap, and you should not expect a notice.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

" If you offer minimum wage you shouldn't expect hard working people.

non-paid interns should and do work very very hard as should minimum wage workers. That's how you build your resume and qualify for a higher paying job with more responsibility.

 

[Daktoria]

The idea is that many successful people manipulate the legal system to get away with being abusive.

success in capitalism comes from inventing and marketing say the iphone that improves peoples standard of living. Where exactly does it come from being abusive or manipulatinig the legal system!?? 3rd time I've asked the Marxist fool.

I guess you never heard of office politics, the Peter Principle, or the iron law of oligarchy?

When you actually work in business, you realize very fast how abusive the work environment is from people leeching off how you apply yourself. Those who become successful aren't those who apply themselves honestly. They're those who suck-up as yes-men, and make their coworkers look bad in order to get away with doing as little as possible.

Even on the investment side of things, the idea is to focus on manipulating property rights behind the excuse of pragmatism, and prioritizing enforcement before legitimacy. Those investments which are practical in the opinion of peers get respected. Those which aren't do not.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I guess you never heard of office politics, the Peter Principle, or the iron law of oligarchy?

dear, capitalism eliminates those things to the greatest extent possible. If a capitalist corporation is not 100% dedicated to servig its customers by producing a superior product at a lower price it will go bankrupt. If it promotes people to jobs they cant do they will be crushed by corporations that promote wisely.

Under liberalism there is no competition ( think Obamacare USSR Red China) so there is no downside to promoting badly office politics.

Do you understand now?

this can be the first day of the rest of your life if only you have the courage to grow and learn!

 

[boedicca]

The hidden agenda that the Elite Progs won't discuss is that the Minimum Wage is intended as a Maximum wage for the Small Folk to:

1. Provide Cheap Labor for Gubmint Cronies.
2. Keep working folks poor enough that they need the government benefit crumbs to survive.
3. Ensure that those trapped into this equation vote Prog.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The hidden agenda that the Elite Progs won't discuss is that the Minimum Wage is intended as a Maximum wage for the Small Folk to:

1. Provide Cheap Labor for Gubmint Cronies.
2. Keep working folks poor enough that they need the government benefit crumbs to survive.
3. Ensure that those trapped into this equation vote Prog.

And....it encourages discrimination!

1. Minimum wage laws actually lower the cost of discriminating against the racially less-preferred individuals. To understand, consider this nonracial example on the effects of such ‘price-setting.’

a. Consider filet mignon and chuck steak. For argument’s sake, and in reality, consumers prefer the former.

b. Now ask, then why does chuck steak sell at all? And, in fact, why is it that chuck steak outsells filet mignon?? It is less preferred…yet competes favorably with something more preferred??

c. The answer is in what economists call ‘compensating differences.’ In effect the chuck says to you: “I’m not as tender nor tasty, but not as expensive,either! I sell for $4/pound, and filet mignon sells for $9/pound.”

d. Chuck steak, in effect, offers to ‘pay’ you $5/pound for its ‘inferiority,’ a compensating difference.

e. What if filet mignon sellers wanted to raise their sales against the less-preferred competitor, but couldn’t get a law passed forbidding the sale of chuck, what should they aim to do?

f. Push for a law establishing a minimum steak-price, say, $9/pound for all steak.

g. Now…chuck steak says: I don’t look as nice, I’m not tender or tasty as filet mignon, and I sell for the same price….Buy me!

h. Prior to legislation, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak was $5/pound…Now?



2. Thus, any mandated minimum lowers the cost (encourages) indulging in racial preference, or increases the cost of training unskilled labor.

Now, if there are mandated minimums, employers will seek the more highly qualified candidate. Due to a number of socioeconomic reasons, white youths have higher levels of educational attainment and training.



It should be pointed out that minimum wage increases gives employers an economic incentive to make other changes: substitute machines for labor; change production techniques; relocate overseas; and eliminate certain jobs altogether.
From “Race & Economics,” by Walter E. Williams.

 

[OnePercenter]

" If you offer minimum wage you shouldn't expect hard working people.

non-paid interns should and do work very very hard as should minimum wage workers. That's how you build your resume and qualify for a higher paying job with more responsibility.

Interns are free labor for business and by what I've personally seen are mostly mistreated. I have two engineering interns who are paid $23.50/hr. They work WITH the professionals, not FOR.

Which bring up the question; Why would you pay a person that makes you all of your money minimum wage?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why would you pay a person that makes you all of your money minimum wage?

english please